ORAU Team

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project

Technical Information Bulletin: A Standard Complex-Wide 

Correction Factor for Overestimating External Doses Measured 

with Film Badge Dosimeters 

Document Number:

ORAUT-OTIB-0010

Effective Date: 01/12/2004

Revision No.: 00

Controlled Copy No.:_______

Page 1 of 11

Subject Expert: Donald N. Stewart

Approval: Signature on File Date: 01/13/2004

James P. Griffin, Task 5 Manager

Concurrence: Signature on File Date: 01/13/2004

Richard E. Toohey, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Date: 01/13/2004

James W. Neton, OCAS Health Science Administrator

Supersedes:

None

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REV. 

NO. DESCRIPTION

Draft 12/12/2003 00-A New Technical Information Bulletin for a Standard 

Complex-Wide Correction Factor for 

Overestimating External Doses Measured with 

Film Badge Dosimeters. Initiated by Donald N.

Stewart.

Draft 12/15/2003 00-B Incorporates comments from internal review. 

Initiated by Donald N. Stewart.

Draft 12/23/2003 00-C Incorporates comments from external review. 

Initiated by Donald N. Stewart.

Draft 01/12/2004 00-D Per OCAS request, T. D. Taulbee is removed 

from the reference list. Initiated by Donald N. 

Stewart.

1/12/2004 01/12/2004 00 First approved issue. Initiated by Donald N. 

Stewart.
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 2 of 11

A STANDARD COMPLEX-WIDE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR 

OVERESTIMATING EXTERNAL DOSES MEASURED WITH FILM BADGE DOSIMETERS 

FOREWORD

The Manhattan Engineering District, and, later, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) had early 

responsibility for processing nuclear weapons material. The AEC was superceded in this function 

(briefly) by the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA), then the Department of Energy 

(DOE). This document presents assumptions for the latter period, when the AEC, ERDA, and DOE 

were the responsible agencies. For the purposes of this document the term ‘DOE’ is used as a term 

of convenience to mean the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies.

Essentially all DOE sites followed a similar evolution in external dosimetry technology. Early twoelement film dosimeters, followed by multi-element film dosimeter designs, gave way in the 1970’s 

and 1980’s to the use of thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for personnel dose monitoring. 

This technical information bulletin (TIB) presents external radiation dose assumptions that may be 

applied to dose reconstructions involving cases for which dose estimates may be prepared based on 

recorded deep and/or shallow dose that incorporate dose monitoring information during the later film 

badge era. Information in this TIB supports radiation dose estimates for complex-wide cases covering 

the time period of 1970 and after. 

It is possible to apply reasonable, overestimating complex-wide assumptions for interpreting recorded 

photon dose for select cases. The methodology described below will generate a reasonable 

overestimate of external radiation dose for cases that are likely non-compensable. In accordance with 

the process efficiencies discussed in 42 CFR 82, use of an overestimated dose allows the expeditious 

processing of likely non-compensable cases. 

Due to the remoteness in time from the film era, the uncertainties inherent in applying simplifying 

overestimating assumptions are greater than the period of the use of TLDs. For this reason, care will

be exercised in the selection of cases that are processed under the assumptions in this TIB. Case 

selection will be based upon the likelihood that the assumptions applied here provide a claimantfavorable overestimate of dose, once case-specific exposure conditions are taken into account. This 

TIB should not be used at sites where significant personnel doses may result from the presence of

elevated airborne levels of environmental radioactivity (EALER) after 1970. 

1.0

The objectives of this document are: 1) to discuss the degree of standardization of late film 

dosimeters and 2) to develop a standard correction factor that will overestimate dose. Information in 

this document examines the performance of late film and TLD dosimeters, application of the standard 

correction factor to overestimate doses, and to address uncertainties from the following sources.

INTRODUCTION

• Variation in workplace photon radiation fields

• Variation in exposure geometries

• The slight under-response of multi-element film badges to photons from about 100 keV to 

about 250 keV. 

While accounting for these uncertainties, the method proposed here will take into account similarities 

among sites across the DOE complex in the following attributes.
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 3 of 11

• Similar dose response performance by photon energies among the dosimeters used

• Similar minimum detection levels (MDL)

• A standard exchange frequency

A single correction factor that takes a large number of programs and features into account must admit 

a great deal of error into any estimate that it modifies. This error is permissible under this program, so 

long as the error is in the claimant’s favor. Specifically, any error must overestimate rather than 

reduce the claimant’s probability of causation. For this reason, the correction factor proposed here 

overestimates any given claimant’s dose. To ensure overestimation in the case of the highest organ 

dose conversion factors, the additional step is taken to multiply the dose by the appropriate organ 

dose conversion factor to ensure that dose is overestimated for all cancers; as an additional claimantfavorable measure, a value of at least one is assumed for the Exposure-to-organ dose conversion 

factor. As the intent is to overestimate the dose to take advantage of an efficiency progress, this 

methodology proposed here is useful only for likely non-compensable claims. 

2.0

The respective DOE sites followed a similar evolution in photon dosimetry technology to measure 

photon dose to workers. Two-element film dosimeter were used in the 1940s and early 1950s, later 

replaced by multi-element film dosimeters in the latter 1950s and these in turn replaced by TLDs in 

the 1960s and 1970s. PICs have been used in addition to these dosimeters throughout all of the 

years of DOE operations. Table 2-1 illustrates this pattern for several DOE sites. Basically, all of 

these sites, and perhaps many others, have equivalent dosimetry technology capabilities for photon 

radiation. The adequacy of the respective photon dosimetry methods to accurately measure radiation 

photon dose is determined from response characteristics of the dosimetry technology according to the 

radiation type, energy, exposure geometry, etc., as described in this section. 

PERSONNEL PHOTON DOSIMETRY TECHNOLOGY

Table 2-1. Evolution in DOE site photon dosimetry capabilities.

Site

Year of first use

Photographic film dosimeter Thermoluminescent dosimeter

Two-element Multi-element Site-specific Commercial

Fernald 1952 1954 n.a. 1985

Hanford 1944 1957 1972 1995

INEEL 1951 1957 1966 1986

LANL (a) 1950 1978

Mound 1952 ? 1981 ?

ORNL 1944 1953 1976 1989

RFP 1951(b) 1954 1970 ?

SRS 1951(c) 1959 1970 1982

Y-12 1948 1961 1980 1989

n.a. – not applicable

a. LANL used other dosimeter designs prior to 1950.

b. RFP used dosimeter capabilities from LANL until implementing their system.

c. SRS used dosimeter capabilities from ORNL until implementing their system.

A more detailed example of the evolution in dosimetry technology is shown in Table 2-2 for Hanford, 

INEEL, ORNL and SRS. This level of detail in the dosimetry design is an important consideration in
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 4 of 11

evaluating the adequacy of the dosimetry technology. Judgment of the dosimetry technology 

capabilities that can be made from this information include:

• Capabilities exist to estimate the penetrating dose based on laboratory tests with these 

dosimeter designs. 

• The respective dosimeter design ensures minimal effect on the penetrating dose component of 

typical beta radiation nuclides in the workplace because of the 1,000 mg/cm2 density thickness 

of the metal filter. This thickness also approximates the 1 cm depth in tissue [i.e., Hp(10)] such 

that any beta contribution to the dosimeter calculated dose could be considered a true 

penetrating dose. 

The most serious limitation of the two-element film dosimeter designs shown in Table 2-2 concern 

mixed beta/photon radiation fields in which the non-penetrating dose may be significantly in error 

because of an inability to distinguish between beta and low-energy photon radiation. This limitation is 

described in Section 2.1.1 and was the motivating reason for the development of the multi-element 

film dosimeters.

Table 2-2. Chronology of DOE site improvements to personnel dosimetry systems.

Facility

Period Dosimeter

material Type Filters

Density(a)

(mg/cm2)

Thickness

Start End (mm)

Hanford 44 44 PICs

44 52 Film DuPont 552 OW,Ag ~0, Ag = 1050 0, Ag = 1

53 56 Film DuPont 552 OW,Ag ~0, Ag = 1050 0, Ag = 1

57 62 Film DuPont 552 OW,Al, Ag#1, Ag#2 ~0; Al = 132; Ag#1=137; 

Ag#2=1050

0

63 71 Film DuPont 558 OW,Fe, Ta ~0; Fe=20; Ta=843 0, 0.025, 0.5

72 95 TLD Five/Four Chips OW,Al, Cd, Sn, Sn ~0;379;912; 980;912 0.05

95 - TLD Harshaw 8825 OW,pl, Sn, Cu ~0;1000, 0.64

INEEL 51 56 Film DuPont 552 OW, Cd ~0; ~1000 0, 1

57 65 Film DuPont 552 OW,Al, Ag, Cd ~0; 175, 203, 950

66 85 TLD Two Chips OW,Al (Cd) ~0; 203 (0; 950)

86 - TLD Panasonic 814/808 Al/plastic (4) ~16; 58; 600; 600

ORNL 43 44 PICs

44 52 Film DuPont 552 OW, Cd ~0; ~1000 0; 1

53 57 Film DuPont 552 OW, Pb, Cd, Cu, plastic ~0; varies, ~1000; 

58 79 Film DuPont 552 OW, Al, Cd, plastic ~0; varies, ~1000;

80 88 TLD Two Chips OW(Plastic) , Al ~0; 430

89 - TLD Harshaw 8805 OW,Plastic, Cu, Teflon ~0; 300; 242; ~1000

SRS 51 58 Film DuPont type 552 OW, Cd ~0; ~1000 Cd =1

58 70 Film DuPont 555 OW, Al, Ag ~0; 540; 1050 Al = 2; Ag = 1

70 82 TLD Two chips OW, Al ~0; 540 Al = 2

82 - TLD Panasonic, UD-802 Mylar, plastic+mylar, 

plastic+mylar, Pb 

~0; 300; 300; ~1000 Pb = 0.7

a. Density thickness of filtration in holder only. Total density thickness would also include filtration in the dosimeter card and responsive elements.

2.1 PERSONNEL PHOTON DOSIMETERS

Personnel whole body photon dosimeters implemented to measure the dose to workers from photon 

radiation were essentially identical at the MED Metallurgical, Clinton and Hanford laboratories in the 

early to mid-1940s. Parker (1945) described results of an intercomparison study of dosimeter 

processing and exposure calculations between these three laboratories prior to declaring the Hanford 

system capable of routine dosimeter processing. Ongoing comparison of dose interpretation among 
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 5 of 11

these MED/AEC sites, and other sites, was done through the years (Wilson et al 1990). The 

dosimeter exchange frequency was gradually lengthened, generally corresponding to the period of the

regulatory dose controls (GE 1954). 

2.1.1

The two-element dosimeter was based on laboratory studies that identified the preferred element and 

thickness for a metallic filter to flatten the dosimeter photon energy response at lower energies 

(Pardue et al 1944). Pardue et al (1944) recommended selection of a filter of cadmium (Z = 47) that 

is about 1 mm thick to minimize the film energy response and still allowed measurement of lower 

energy photons. The respective DOE sites used cadmium and other elements such as silver (Z = 48) 

or tin (Z = 50) in their designs. This dosimeter was first used at the University of Chicago (Thornton et 

al 1961). This dosimeter design was adopted for use at ORNL and noted as the “tin” badge (Thornton

et al 1961). There appear to be some refinements in this basic design at ORNL where five basic 

changes in this design were used (Thornton et al 1961) and at LANL by adding filters of lead (Z=82) 

and brass (Cu = 29, Zn = 30) to obtain improved capabilities in beta/photon fields and in photon 

energy resolution. These refined dosimeter designs, using two or three metallic filters, provide 

improved capabilities to distinguish between beta and photon radiation, primarily, and with knowledge 

of the workplace radiation field, between beta, and lower and higher energy photon radiation. 

Two-Element Film Dosimeters

An important feature of the respective DOE site photon dosimeters was the selection of the type of 

film to be used. The available film had similar radiation energy response characteristics but the 

sensitivity of the film to radiation varied (Thornton et al 1961). Many sites used film, such as the 

DuPont 502 type, with a sensitive (lower radiation dose response) and an insensitive (typically 

accident-level dose response) side to each film packet. In normal practice only the sensitive side of 

the film was processed for personnel dose assessment. However, for higher doses, and to confirm 

higher suspicious readings, the insensitive film response could also be measured.

The two-element dosimeter design had an open window (OW) to measure non-penetrating radiation 

in addition to the filter region with 1 mm of silver, cadmium or tin. Each of these metallic filters has a 

density thickness of approximately 1,000 mg/cm2

. This selection minimizes the potential for beta 

radiation to contribute to the interpreted penetrating dose. Certainly, only beta radiation with energy 

greater than about 3 MeV can penetrate the filter and contribute to the interpreted penetrating dose. 

Historically, studies of film dosimeter performance, stability of latent image, etc., were performed 

during the 1950s (Wilson 1957, 1960). Numerous intercomparison and performance studies were 

done among DOE laboratories (Wilson et al 1990). The laboratory measured A-P photon energy 

response of the two-element dosimeter system is shown in Figure 2-1 in comparison with Hp(10). As 

noted in this figure, the film dosimeter open window (OW) response shows a significant over-response 

to lower-energy photon radiation. Operationally, the over-response was so significant that some 

option was necessary to interpret the dosimeter response based on the anticipated radiation fields in 

the work environment. The ratio of the OW to the filtered film response was routinely used in dose 

evaluation (Larson and Roesch 1954) and there is reference to using a fraction (i.e., 0.2 at Hanford, 

35% at SRS) of the open window response to add to the penetrating dose in facilities with low energy 

photons and no beta radiation (i.e., plutonium facilities) (Fix et al 1997b, Taylor et al 1993). The film 

nonpenetrating (i.e., open window) and penetrating (i.e., metallic filter) response was generally used 

to estimate the skin dose from beta and photon radiation. 
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 6 of 11

2.1.2

Multi-element film dosimeters were developed to provide improved capabilities to measure beta, 

lower-energy and higher-energy photon radiation dose components particularly in mixed beta and 

photon radiation fields. This was done by most of the DOE sites in several site-specific designs. 

Often, the basic design of the two-element dosimeter (i.e., open window and 1 mm silver, cadmium or 

tin shield) was incorporated by the respective sites into the design of the multielement dosimeters. 

The multi-element beta/photon film dosimeters generally consisted of 3 or 4 shielded areas and 

provided substantially improved capabilities to measure deep dose by flattening the overall response. 

Processing results (i.e., optical density) were recorded for the film response behind each of these 

filters and an algorithm was used to calculate the respective dose components. 

Multielement Film Dosimeters 

0.1

1

10

100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Relative Respons

Photon Energy, MeV

Hp(10)

Two-Element Film 

Dosimeter OW

Two-Element Film 

Dosimeter Shield

Figure 2-1. Measured two-element dosimeter photon response for anterior-toposterior exposure geometry (Pardue et al 1944, Wilson et al 1990).

0

1

2

3

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Photon Energy, MeV

Relative Respons

Hp(10)

Two-Element Film

Dosimeter Shield

Multi-Element Film

Dosimeter

TLD
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 7 of 11

Figure 2-2. Measured deep dose response for Hanford Two-Element film, multielement film and thermoluminescent dosimeter compared to Hp(10). (Wilson et al 

1990).

2.2 FILM BADGE RESPONSE IN COMPARISON WITH HP(10).

As can be seen in the foregoing figures, the comparison of TLD and film badge performance to Hp(10) 

dose demonstrates that film dosimeters a) under-respond to photons of energies less than about 60 

keV; b) over-respond to photons of energies between the response threshold up to several hundred 

keV; and c) conform well with respect to Hp(10) beyond about 300 keV. Figure 2-1 shows that for 

shallow dose considerations, the open-window portion of the two-element film badges over-respond at 

even very low energies. This is corrected with the compensating design of the multi-element film 

badge as shown in Figure 2-2, though somewhat overcompensated in that these dosimeters slightly

under-responded to photons between about 100 and about 250 keV. 

3.0

The predominant concern with regard to interpreting film badge results is of film dosimeters’ underresponse to photons of energies less than about 60 keV. For this reason, application of the dose 

parameters in this TIB should not be applied to workplaces with extensive exposure to low-energy 

photons in the workplace. Workplace radiation fields that included photons in the < 30 keV energy 

range are likely underestimated by film badge dosimeters, and for this reason, assumptions dealing

with this dose component, such as with workers who worked directly with plutonium, should be 

documented specifically in the dose reconstruction report, or in an appropriate supporting document. 

Typical exceptions are outlined in Section 4.1. 

INTERPRETATION OF DOE FILM BADGE RECORDS.

Another inaccuracy in the film era, over-response in the open-window reading to photons of energies 

between the response threshold and about 300 keV, is not necessarily of concern for the purposes of 

dose reconstruction. The error in this case occurs on the side of the claimant, as the dose the energy 

employee may have received is overestimated by the film badge result. Adjustments to this 

overestimated dose component may be made as necessary on a case-by-case basis.

The strategy for interpretation of documented film badge results from DOE records may be 

summarized in accordance with the four bullets below.

• Doses from photons in the standard energy range of > 250 keV may be interpreted as 

exposure without modification.

• Multi-element film dosimeter doses are slightly under-predicted between about 100 keV and 

about 250 keV. 

• Dose from photons are not reliably estimated in the lowest energy range, < 30 keV, and 

performance around 60 keV is questionable. Workplaces with photons from plutonium are not 

adequately characterized by the assumptions in this document, therefore dose reconstructions 

that involve exposure to plutonium and those that utilize dose from the lowest photon energy 

range must document assumptions on a case-by-case basis. 
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 8 of 11

3.1 STANDARD EXPOSURE GEOMETRY AND ENERGY RANGES.

The review of organ dose conversion factors was limited to the Anterior-Posterior exposure geometry 

for photons of energies between 30 and 250 keV. The standard use of these exposure parameters 

has been adopted by this project as a claimant-favorable assumption. 

3.2 FILM BADGE LEVEL OF DETECTION 

The sensitivity of the film used determines the lowest level of dose that may be detected. A typical 

value of film sensitivity is 0.5 NOD units per 400 milliroentgens exposure (CETS 1989). This 

translates to a lower limit of detection of between 10 and 20 milliroentgens for films with this 

sensitivity, for photons above a few hundred keV (CETS 1989). For the purposes of this project, this 

sensitivity is referred to as the minimum level of detection (LOD) for a given dosimeter, and a review 

of this quantity reported by individual site dosimetry programs was performed as part of the research 

for this project. Values for early film badges were assumed to be as high as 50 mrem for photons and 

60 or 80 mrem(OCAS 2003) for electrons. A review of film records captured as part of this project’s 

research also demonstrates film badge readings recorded as ‘< 10;’ values this low are possible, but 

for the purposes of this project, should be neglected without substantial site-specific information on 

source term and calibration techniques to corroborate such a low value. For the purposes of 

overestimation, the typical value of 40 mrem as listed in the CETS 1989 reference will be assumed for 

later film badge programs. . 

3.3 STANDARD CORRECTION FACTOR 

A standard correction factor is promulgated here that increases the assigned dose to claimants with 

the objective to overestimate the actual organ dose. The use of this factor is intended to assure 

claimant-favorable assigned dose by compensating for uncertainty from potential variance in sitespecific exposure conditions and calibration practices that, without correction, may have resulted in an 

underestimated dose. This standard correction factor overestimates dose in order to take into 

account, and overestimate, corrections that may be required to convert the dose as measured from 

site to site to a standard value of Hp(10), including the under-response of multi-element film 

dosimeters to photons between 100 and 250 keV. The value of this factor (2.0) is listed, along with the 

other parameters necessary for estimating doses under this TIB, in Table 4-1, below. 

3.4 ORGAN DOSE CONVERSION FACTOR 

The correction factor listed above incorporates uncertainty in measurements and radiation exposure 

characteristics in workplaces as measured with film badges, however, in contrast to the standard 

correction/conversion factor applied to TLDs in OTIB-0008, may not incorporate sufficient claimant 

favorability for some organs with high organ dose conversion factors. For this reason, the additional 

step is taken to multiply the dose (overestimated by a factor of 2) by the applicable organ dose 

conversion factor from the tables in Appendix B of the External Implementation Guideline. 

Specifically, dose is multiplied by the Exposure (R)-to-organ (HT) dose conversion factor unless that 

value is less than unity, in which case the dose conversion factor will be assumed to have a value of 

1. Appropriate dose conversion factors are selected from the tables by organ using the median value 

for the Anterior-to-Posterior (AP) geometry. 

4.0 STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS FOR OVERESTIMATING DEEP DOSES MEASURED 

WITH FILM BADGES. 
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 9 of 11

Standard values for energy distribution, missed dose, organ dose conversion factors, and exchange 

frequencies are given in Table 4-1 below. These may be applied to recorded doses from the late film 

badge era. Based on a review of the literature, the applicability date of 1970 is significantly predated 

by the first year of monthly exchange for most sites, however, care should be exercised by the dose 

reconstructor to ensure that the assumed monthly frequency is accurate in individual cases. Similarly, 

the routine exchange frequency may not be reflected in individual cases, for operational reasons. 

When an alternate frequency is indicated in the DOE record, the assumed number of zeros should be 

adjusted to ensure that missed dose is adequately overestimated. Assumptions in Table 4-1 support 

complex-wide dose overestimates from the year 1970 and later for workplaces without significant lowenergy photon contributions. Examples of such workplaces are given in section 4.1, below. 

Table 4-1. Standard assumptions for overestimating doses measured with film badges. 

Period of 

applicability

Photonenergy 

range (keV)

Missed 

dose per 

cycle

Standard 

correction 

factor

Exposure-to- Organ 

(HT) DCF

Assumed exchange 

frequency

1970 onward 100% 30–250 0.040 rem 2.0 ≥ 1a Monthly

a. From Appendix B of the OCAS-IG-001, External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline: a value of 1.0 or the table value 

(typically assume 100% AP geometry), whichever is greater. 

4.1 WORKPLACE CHARACTERISTICS THAT PRECLUDE UNSUPPORTED APPLICATION 

OF THE OVERESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS IN THIS DOCUMENT.

Complex workers who had significant exposure to low-energy photons may have recorded doses that 

do not reliably represent their actual photon dose in the film badge era. Application of the 

assumptions presented here is not appropriate unless justification is specifically supported in 

individual dose reconstruction reports. Examples of workplaces that would typically have spectra with 

significant low-energy photons include.

• Weapons assembly and disassembly areas.

• Plutonium machining areas.

• Plutonium processing facilities in areas where the primary hazard is from the product.

• Laboratories performing work with plutonium or americium.

Additionally, individual dose reconstructors may encounter specific situations where workplace 

characterization suggests exposure to photons in the lowest energy range (< 30 keV) or lower-energy 

photons in the intermediate range, up to 100 keV comprise a significant proportion of the dose.

5.0

This TIB is not to be used for evaluation of shallow doses (Note: for breast and testicular cancer 

cases, this TIB can be used for calculating the deep dose component only). The External Dose 

Reconstruction procedure (ORAUT-PROC-0006) provides generic instructions for overestimating 

shallow doses and shall be used at this time, pending the development of detailed instructions in TIBs 

or TBDs.

EVALUATION OF SHALLOW DOSES MEASURED WITH FILM BADGES
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 10 of 11

REFERENCES 

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1963. Notice Regarding Need for Establishment of Film 

Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory. Federal Register 63, page 9411, September 1963.

Becker, Klaus, 1973. Solid State Dosimetry. CRC Press, Cleveland OH.

Commission on Engineering and Nuclear Tests, Energy Research Board, National Research Council 

(CETS), 1989, Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests. National Academy of 

Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Department of Energy (DOE). 1986. Department of Energy Standard for the Performance Testing of 

Personnel Dosimetry Systems. DOE/EH-0027. US Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Fix, JJ, L. Salmon, G. Cowper and E. Cardis. 1997a. A Retrospective Evaluation of the Dosimetry 

Employed in an International Combined Epidemiologic Study. Radia. Prot. Dosi. 74, 39-53.

Fix, J.J., R.H. Wilson and W.V. Baumgartner. 1997b. Retrospective Assessment of Personnel 

Neutron Dosimetry for Workers at the Hanford Site. PNNL-11196, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Fix, J. J, E. S. Gilbert and W. V. Baumgartner. 1994. An Assessment of Bias and Uncertainty in 

Recorded Dose from External Sources of Radiation for Workers at the Hanford Site. PNL10066, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Fix, J. J., J. M. Hobbs, P. L. Roberson, D. C. Haggard, K. L. Holbrook, M. R. Thorson, F. M. 

Cummings. 1982. Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Supporting Studies FY-1981. PNL-3736. 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Fix, J. J., G. W. R. Endres, F. M. Cummings, J. M. Aldrich, M. R. Thorson, R. L. Kathren. 1981. 

Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Supporting Studies FY-1980. PNL-3536, Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

General Electric (GE). 1954. Radiation Protection Standards. Dated 12/15/54. HW-25457. 

General Electric, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, WA.

Gorson, R.O., N. Suntharalingam, and J.W. Thomas. 1965. Results of a Film-Badge Reliability 

Study. Radiology, Vol 84. pp 333-346, February 1965.

Hanford Engineering Works (HEW). Manual of Standard Procedures: Personnel Meters, Part 16. Film 

Calibration and Batch Assignments. May 1, 1946. Medical Department, Health Instrument 

Section.

Hine, Gerald J. and Gordon L. Brownell. 1956. Radiation Dosimetry. Academic Press, New York, 

NY (p 506).

International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). 1993. Quantities and Units 

in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, ICRU Report No. 51. ICRU. Bethesda, Maryland
Effective Date: 01/12/2004 Revision No. 00 Document No.ORAUT-OTIB-0010 Page 11 of 11

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2002. External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guidelines Rev 1, OCAS-IG-001, National Institute of Occupational Safety and 

Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, OH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), ORAUT TKBS-0005, Technical Basis Document: Basis 

for Development of an Exposure Matrix for the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, St. Louis 

Downtown Site, St. Louis, Missouri, Period of Operation 1942-1958. October, 2003.

Pardue, L. A., N. Goldstein and E. O. Wollan. 1944. Photographic Film As a Pocket Radiation 

Dosimeter. CH-1553-A-2223, Metallurgical Laboratory, Chicago, IL. 

Parker, H. M. 1945. Comparison of Badge Film Readings at the Metallurgical Laboratories, Clinton 

Laboratories and the Hanford Engineering Works. 7-3090, Hanford Atomic Products 

Operation, Richland, WA.

Roberson, P.L., K.L. Holbrook, R.C. Yoder, R.A. Fox, R. T. Hadley, B.T. Hogan and C.D. Hooker. 

1983. Performance Comparisons of Selected Personnel Dosimetry Systems in Use at 

Department of Energy Facilities. PNL-3983. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Taylor, G. A., Crase, K. W., LaBone Thomas R. and Wilkie, W. H., (1995) A History of Personnel 

Radiation Dosimetry at the Savannah River Site, WSRC-RP-95-234, Westinghouse Savannah 

River Company, Aiken, South Carolina.

Thierry-Chef, I., F. Pernicka, M. Marshall, E. Cardis and P. Andreo. 2002. Study of a Selection of 10 

Historical Types of Dosemeter: Variation of the Response to Hp(10) with Photon Energy and 

Geometry of Exposure. Radiat Prot Dos, 102(2): 101-113.

Unruh, C. M., H.V. Larson, T.M. Beetle and A.R. Keene. 1967. The Establishment and Utilization of 

Film Dosimeter Performance Criteria. BNWL-542. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, 

WA.

Wilson, R.H. 1987. Historical Review of Personnel Dosimetry Development and its Use in Radiation 

Protection Programs at Hanford: 1944 Through 1989. PNL-6125, Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory, Richland, WA. 

Wilson, R.H., J.J. Fix, W. V. Baumgartner, and L. L. Nichols. 1990. Description and Evaluation of the 

Hanford Personnel Dosimeter Program From 1944 Through 1989. PNL-7447. Pacific 

Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.